People v. Welcome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Welcome

181 A.D.2d 628, 582 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5223

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 31, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 628 (People v. Welcome) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Welcome, 181 A.D.2d 628, 582 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered June 11, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of IV2 to 15 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

While the victim was unable to observe defendant’s face during the robbery, her positive identification of his build, stature and clothing constituted sufficient proof of identity as a matter of law (Matter of Ryan W., 143 AD2d 435, 437; People v Spinks, 37 AD2d 424). Indeed, the defendant was apprehended within minutes of the crime, in close proximity thereto and in possession of complainant’s camera.

The arresting officer’s testimony corroborated the victim’s testimony and "merely served as a necessary narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest” (People v Jones, 160 AD2d 333); it did not constitute impermissible "bolstering” within the meaning of People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471). In any event, defendant’s bolstering argument is not preserved for review (People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947; People v Bolling, 166 AD2d 203, lv granted 77 NY2d 836), but, even if it were, and assuming it to be meritorious, the evidence was more than sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without the victim’s in-court identification (People v Williams, 156 AD2d 302). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered June 11, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of IV2 to 15 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

While the victim was unable to observe defendant’s face during the robbery, her positive identification of his build, stature and clothing constituted sufficient proof of identity as a matter of law (Matter of Ryan W., 143 AD2d 435, 437; People v Spinks, 37 AD2d 424). Indeed, the defendant was apprehended within minutes of the crime, in close proximity thereto and in possession of complainant’s camera.

The arresting officer’s testimony corroborated the victim’s testimony and "merely served as a necessary narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest” (People v Jones, 160 AD2d 333); it did not constitute impermissible "bolstering” within the meaning of People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471). In any event, defendant’s bolstering argument is not preserved for review (People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947; People v Bolling, 166 AD2d 203, lv granted 77 NY2d 836), but, even if it were, and assuming it to be meritorious, the evidence was more than sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without the victim’s in-court identification (People v Williams, 156 AD2d 302). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 628, 582 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-welcome-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack